S v Bequinot (CCT24/95) [1996] ZACC 21; 1996 (12) BCLR 1588; 1997 (2) SA 887 (18 November 1996)

S v Bequinot (CCT24/95) [1996] ZACC 21; 1996 (12) BCLR 1588; 1997 (2) SA 887 (18 November 1996)

The Constitutional Court held that the referral of the constitutional validity of section 37 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955 was procedurally and substantively defective. The lower court failed to provide adequate reasons for the referral, did not establish that the constitutional issue was decisive for the outcome, and did not consider whether the interests of justice warranted interruption of the criminal appeal. The parties had not raised the constitutional issue themselves, and the factual and legal matters underpinning the conviction had not been properly canvassed or resolved by the lower court. The Court emphasized that constitutional questions should only be determined...

Citation
[1996] ZACC 21
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Walter Bequinot
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 1996
Case Number
CCT24/95
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Referral / Referral From Witwatersrand Local Division to Constitutional Court Under Section 102(1) of the Interim Constitution
Outcome
Referral dismissed; matter remitted to the Witwatersrand Local Division for further proceedings.
Judges
Kriegler, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Didcott, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Reverse Onus, Fair Trial Rights, Presumption of Innocence, Section 37 General Law Amendment Act, Section 25 3 C Constitution, Referral Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Reverse Onus Fair Trial Rights Presumption of Innocence Section 37 General Law Amendment Act Section 25 3 C Constitution Referral Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Walter Bequinot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Referral / Referral From Witwatersrand Local Division to Constitutional Court Under Section 102(1) of the Interim Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the referral of the constitutionality of section 37 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955 was procedurally and substantively proper.
  2. 2 Whether the constitutional question regarding the reverse onus provision was decisive for the outcome of the criminal appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice justified interruption of the criminal appeal for constitutional determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the referral of the constitutional validity of section 37 of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955 was procedurally and substantively defective. The lower court failed to provide adequate reasons for the referral, did not establish that the constitutional issue was decisive for the outcome, and did not consider whether the interests of justice warranted interruption of the criminal appeal. The parties had not raised the constitutional issue themselves, and the factual and legal matters underpinning the conviction had not been properly canvassed or resolved by the lower court. The Court emphasized that constitutional questions should only be determined...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed; matter remitted to the Witwatersrand Local Division for further proceedings.

Orders

  • The case is remitted to the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court to be dealt with in accordance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court.